On Feb 5, 2008 6:21 PM, Alexandru Popescu ☀ <
the....@gmail.com> wrote:
(to Christophe)
There are commons points between both solutions in term of annotations
but
JCROM doesn't support lazy loading, interface and ínheritance, custom
converter, .... Futhermore Jackrabbit OCM makes more abstraction on the
JCR
API which is not the case of JCROM.
These are indeed feature that everybody will start considering at the
point their application gets complex enough. However, people may
consider that annotation based metadata to be easier to create and
maintain than XML, and so putting them together will make sense. I am
not saying that in the current form, or in a more JPA-like form.
Alex,
Jackrabbit OCM is also supporting the annotation like JCROM since a long
time.
XML support is not mandatory.
Concerning JPA, we can make a small study to check if JPA is really a good
solution for a JCR backend ... if someone have time :-)
I think it is possible to have a very simple OCM tools (easier than JPA).
There are some lacks in the current Jackrabbit OCM like the documentation to
have a better adoption. Default mapping support could be also added.
Well, my current status (plus my financial statement) are telling me
that I am not the right person for this.
Moreover, I do think that is time to leave some room for the younger
to get involved in the open source ;-).
You are so philosophic today ;-)
Christophe
19 messages in org.apache.jackrabbit.devRe: Content Object Mapping - jcrom.org
